How were the proposals in this discussion document developed?
On this page
The proposals in this discussion document are based on previous consultation and advice
We developed the options in this discussion document by analysing the advice, feedback and information collected on this issue to date. Some of the options were also informed by a cross-sector technical advisory group (refer to the end of this section for further details about this group).
How we are choosing to analyse regulatory options
Freedom camping regulations are intended to increase public trust in the self-contained vehicle system, and reduce the environmental impacts of vehicle-based freedom camping. In particular, freedom camping regulations aim to meet one or more of the following outcomes:
- Environmental protection – vehicles should meet minimum technical requirements in order to be certified self-contained. Harm to the natural environment associated with the inappropriate disposal of waste and camping in unsuitable vehicles or in unsuitable areas is reduced.
- Public trust and confidence – the self-contained vehicle system is trustworthy, and issues with the social licence to freedom camp are mitigated.
- A ‘light touch’ approach – the regulatory system is ‘light-handed’ and in-line with the level of potential harm caused by incorrectly certified “self-contained” vehicles, while still enabling the regulator to provide robust national oversight.
What are the regulatory options?
This discussion document functions as an interim Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) by weighing up the regulatory policy options set out in Chapters One to Six against the stated criteria of the desired outcomes.
What criteria will be used to evaluate the merits of policy options?
This discussion document uses the criteria in Chapters One to Five (below) to assess the merits of different policy options:
- Costs – the costs on participants in the regulatory system, which includes self-contained vehicle owners, certification authorities, vehicle inspectors and the PGDB.
- Practicality – how easy each option is to implement.
- Effectiveness – the potential to drive freedom camping reform and regulatory outcomes.
Chapter Six, which covers options for fees and levies, uses a separate set of criteria common to analysing fees and levies across Government. This is explained in detail in that chapter.
Key for qualitative judgments in tables
|+ 2||Considerably better than doing nothing / the status quo|
|+ 1||Better than doing nothing / the status quo|
|0||About the same as doing nothing / the status quo|
|- 1||Worse than doing nothing / the status quo|
|- 2||Considerably worse than doing nothing / the status quo|
Some of our proposed options are informed by a cross-sector technical advisory group
We established a cross-sector technical advisory group to help with the development of some of the proposals in this discussion document. The group helped with the proposals relating to:
- setting fit-for-purpose technical requirements for self-containment
- the criteria for approval as a self-containment certification authority and vehicle inspector competency requirements
- the self-containment documentation issued (the self-containment certificate and warrant).
The cross-sector technical advisory group is made up of representatives from the following organisations:
- New Zealand Motor Caravan Association (NZMCA) – an issuing authority and advocacy group
- Taituarā - Local Government Professionals Aotearoa – representing local government
- Plumbers, Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (PGDB) – the regulator of the self-contained vehicle system
- Master Plumbers Association – representing plumbers
- Self-Contained NZ – an issuing authority
- NZ Lifestyle Camping – an issuing authority and advocacy group
- NZ Rental Vehicle Association – representing rental operators
- NZ Recreational Vehicle Association – representing manufacturers
- Tourism Holdings Ltd – major fleet owner
- Action Manufacturing – manufacturer of motorhomes
We thank the group members for their time and willingness to provide constructive feedback.